Comment Re:Definition of religion (Score 1) 795
As opposed to saying the ultimate cause is "random", a non-explanation presuming a causal world,
You're about one full century behind in your physics. Nice try though.
As opposed to saying the ultimate cause is "random", a non-explanation presuming a causal world,
You're about one full century behind in your physics. Nice try though.
I usually don't answer to such posts but I will today.
What amuses me most is that you probably think you're about as smart as me and that you actually have the mental capacity to argue the point you present.
If you in fact believe what you're saying, intellectually you're barely more than a monkey. Somewhat sadly, you'll most assuredly never believe how unprepared you are to understand the idiocy on your arguments, or even the fact that there is so much of it.
Anyway. Don't worry. Keep believing and live your life to the extent your limitations allow. You'll probably even be happier than the average.
To do so is like arguing about the hardness of fire. It makes no sense.
If you can't make sense of the hardness of fire, maybe you should stick to religion. They have lower standards.
If you made this argument, mockery is more than you deserved.
So: religion and science could coexist if people weren't so stupid as to not understand what science is? And: religion concerns the ultimate causes of things by definition?
by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things
By which definition? Because it's most certainly none given by religious people. Otherwise there wouldn't be any Religion vs Science debate.
There would be little to discuss if Religion said "Ok, evolution is real, but its ultimate cause is angels.".
Indeed. Now that KSP has a budget mode, safe missions to test feasibility with almost no scientific payload became more interesting.
Which number is bigger? 15 or 5.
Are there hats?
Do owls exist?
And yet, only one side should matter; the people.
And no, corporations aren't people and each person counts as one, regardless of their bank account and army of lobbyists.
Sasquatch? Is that you?
I could be the man to make that alternative! I will make "CollectiveProduction" or CollProd!
If only I had some money to start my project...
Suicide doesn't erase the past carbon footprint. I would expect an ecologist to want to erase his footprint debt before leaving.
I wonder how many on that 400.000 group, if offered a choice between ten thousand bucks or eliminating their entire personal carbon foot print, would chose the former.
I wonder how many would know how much it would cost to eliminate their entire personal carbon footprint.
Some people out there have motivations other than "money" and "lulz".
Things like "respect of one's peers", "ideology", "non-conformism" or even "the challenge of doing something hard no one else can do", can make some people take quite large risks.
"Stopping rape just makes people better rapists."
You're equating "raids" with "stopping", in a thread about how raids didn't stop anything.
A site which makes a few sincere threats, let alone organisational efforts, against the wrong people will be identified very quickly, because, well, all traffic has a source and a destination.
And once it's been identified it will be... What exactly? Raided? Censored with an internet censoring machine?
Are you really suggesting that one can't discuss criminal activity online? What medium do you think abductions, homicides and terrorist attacks are planned with? Postcards? The ultra-secure, never tapped phones?
Raids only make sites become raid-proof. Just as monitoring creates encryption and oppression creates rebellion.
But of course one cannot fight the core problem when the core problem is oneself.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
